Beef, Butter, and Blind Spots: A Dietitian’s Take on the New Dietary Guidelines

 Beef, Butter, and Blind Spots: A Dietitian’s Take on the New Dietary Guidelines

By Bridget Storm, MA, RD-AP, LDN, CNSC

The newest Dietary Guidelines arrive amid rising rates of diet-related disease and growing confusion about what “healthy eating” really means.³ They include several evidence-based recommendations—but also areas where the scientific nuance, environmental context, and practical realities are not fully reflected, leaving dietitians with substantial work to translate these messages for patients and communities.¹⁻⁴

Backstage at the DGAs

For a document that influences school meals, SNAP, WIC, and national nutrition messaging, the limited involvement of practicing registered dietitians is concerning.²,⁶ RDs contribute clinical and community-based experience that complements academic and policy perspectives and is essential for crafting guidance that works in real-world settings.⁵⁻⁸

Conflicts of interest and industrial influence can affect which studies are emphasized and how recommendations are framed.⁵⁻⁹ In this cycle, only about one-fifth of cited references come from peer-reviewed nutrition journals, despite a large body of high-quality nutrition research.²,⁹ A stronger emphasis on independent, peer-reviewed nutrition science—especially around dietary patterns, chronic disease risk, and health equity—would likely improve both the rigor and the practicality of the guidelines.¹,⁴,⁹

Protein Panic or Protein Perspective?

Previous guidelines have long recommended including a protein source at each meal, often emphasizing lean meats, fish, eggs, and plant-based proteins.² The current cycle’s louder focus on protein, particularly from animal sources, risks overshadowing equally important aspects of diet quality, such as fiber intake and overall eating pattern.¹,⁸,¹⁰

Higher protein intakes in the range of 1.2–1.6 g/kg/day are well supported for certain clinical populations—such as acutely ill adults and older hospitalized patients—where they can help preserve lean mass and improve outcomes.¹¹⁻¹³ These targets, however, are not intended as blanket goals for generally healthy, community-dwelling adults, many of whom already consume more than 1 g/kg/day.¹,¹¹⁻¹⁴ For individuals with renal or hepatic impairment, unsupervised high-protein diets may increase risk of complications, highlighting the importance of individualized assessment and guidance from RDs and healthcare teams.¹¹⁻¹³

Steak, Saturation, & Sustainability

The guidelines’ relatively favorable stance toward red meat, beef tallow, butter, and full-fat dairy contrasts with much of the cardiometabolic and environmental literature.²,⁴,⁸ From an environmental perspective, beef generally has substantially higher greenhouse gas emissions and land and water use per kilogram of product compared with pork, poultry, and most plant proteins, even when improved grazing and carbon sequestration strategies are applied.¹⁵⁻¹⁷

Nutritionally, prioritizing red meat and high-fat dairy increases saturated fat intake, and major health organizations continue to recommend limiting saturated fat to less than 10% of total calories to help reduce cardiovascular risk.²,⁴,¹⁸,¹⁹ Evidence does not support treating full-fat animal products as neutral for population-level heart health, especially given their calorie density.¹⁸⁻²¹ In contrast, highlighting unsaturated fats from nuts, seeds, olives, avocados, fish, and eggs in appropriate portions is consistent with cardiometabolic and dietary pattern research.¹⁷⁻²¹

The discussion of linoleic acid (an essential omega-6 fatty acid) adds another layer.¹⁸,²⁰,²¹ Linoleic acid must be obtained from the diet and plays important structural and signaling roles.¹,²⁰ Studies generally show that replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fats, including linoleic acid, is associated with lower coronary heart disease risk.¹⁸,²⁰,²¹ While supplementation trials yield mixed results when added to already adequate diets, this does not mean saturated fat and linoleic acid are equivalent from a cardiovascular standpoint.¹⁸,²⁰,²¹ A practical public message is to emphasize whole-food sources of polyunsaturated fats and to moderate saturated fat from red meat and high-fat dairy.¹⁸⁻²¹

Carbohydrate Clarity or Confusion?

In a population with chronically low fiber intake, the limited emphasis on legumes and other high-fiber plant proteins is a notable gap.² Higher intakes of beans, lentils, chickpeas, and peas are linked with lower all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, improved cardiometabolic markers, and better glycemic control.¹⁶,²⁴ Soluble and insoluble fiber support lipid management, glycemic control, bowel regularity, microbiome diversity, and possibly lower risk of several cancers.¹⁶,¹⁷,²⁴

These foods also tend to be more environmentally sustainable and cost-effective than many animal proteins, offering benefits for health, budgets, and planetary resources.¹⁵⁻¹⁷,²⁴ Centering legumes more explicitly within the protein group would support dietary patterns that are higher in fiber and lower in saturated fat, without requiring elimination of animal products.⁸,¹⁵⁻¹⁷,²⁴

Carbohydrate guidance is another area where clarification would help. The carbohydrate RDA for adults is 130 grams per day, based on the minimum glucose needed to fuel the brain.¹ Some interpretations of the new grain guidance—such as 2–4 servings of grains per day without clear portion context or accounting for carbohydrates from fruits, vegetables, dairy, and legumes—could, for certain individuals, approach intakes that are low enough to raise questions about long-term cognitive, mood, and performance impacts.²,²⁵⁻²⁷ Very-low-carbohydrate and ketogenic diets (often under about 50 grams per day) can be therapeutic for specific conditions but are not broadly recommended for the general population.²⁶,²⁷

Health Equity Missing at the Heart of the Guidelines

Health equity is another essential consideration for how the guidelines are interpreted and implemented.³,⁵ Diet-related disparities are closely tied to social determinants such as income, neighborhood food environments, and structural barriers to affordable, nutritious foods.³,⁸,²⁵ Programs like SNAP, WIC, school meals, produce prescriptions, and “food is medicine” initiatives can improve diet quality and reduce chronic disease burden when adequately designed and funded.³,²⁹,³⁰ However, for many families, food and housing together can consume more than half of pre-tax income, making some guideline recommendations challenging to follow without broader policy and economic support.³¹

From Policy Pages to Plates: Turning National Guidance into Real-Life Eating

Dietitians are uniquely positioned to turn broad national guidelines into practical, individualized care.⁶,²⁹ Clear strengths—such as emphasizing whole over refined grains, limiting ultra-processed foods and added sugars, promoting water and unsweetened beverages, and aligning intake with individual needs—are well worth reinforcing in counseling and education.²,¹⁷,¹⁹,²³ At the same time, many people need help interpreting generalized advice like “eat the right amount for you” in light of their health status, culture, budget, and preferences.²,²⁴

National guidelines will always involve some compromise between evolving science, implementation realities, and diverse population needs.¹,²,⁴ Dietitians can help bridge these gaps by grounding recommendations in the strongest available evidence, clarifying areas of uncertainty, and advocating for more transparent, independent processes in future guideline cycles.⁵,⁷,⁸ In clinical, community, and public health settings, RDs can guide individuals and institutions toward eating patterns that support both human and planetary well-being—regardless of the imperfections in any single guideline document.¹,³,⁸

References:

1. Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2005.​
2. U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020–2025. 9th ed. Washington, DC: USDA/HHS; 2020.​
3. Swinburn BA, Kraak VI, Allender S, et al. The global syndemic of obesity, undernutrition, and climate change: the Lancet Commission report. Lancet. 2019;393(10173):791‑846.​
4. DeSalvo KB, Olson R, Casavale KO. Dietary Guidelines for Americans. JAMA. 2016;315(5):457‑458.​
5. Zeraatkar D, Zajac J, Mascarenhas M, et al. Conflicts of interest for members of the US 2020 dietary guidelines advisory committee. Public Health Nutr. 2022;25(11):3063‑3072.​
6. U.S. Right to Know. FULL DISCLOSURE: Conflicts of Interest of the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. Oakland, CA: U.S. Right to Know; 2023.​
7. Moodie R, Stuckler D, Monteiro C, et al. Profits and pandemics: prevention of harmful effects of tobacco, alcohol, and ultra‑processed food and drink industries. Lancet. 2013;381(9867):670‑679.​
8. World Health Organization. Commercial Determinants of Health. Geneva: WHO; 2023.​
9. Fabbri A, Bero LA. Industry funding of nutrition-related scientific articles in high-impact journals: a cross-sectional analysis. Public Health Nutr. 2020;23(10):1680‑1687.​
10. Time. New Dietary Guidelines Urge People to Eat More Protein and Fewer Processed Foods. Time Magazine. January 6, 2026.​
11. Beauchesne A‑R, Hsu JW, Heyland DK, et al. High protein provision of more than 1.2 g/kg improves muscle mass preservation and mortality in ICU patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Nutr. 2023;42(8):1491‑1503.​
12. Koekkoek WAC, van Zanten ARH. Protein requirements and provision in critically ill adults: current evidence and knowledge gaps. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2022;25(2):97‑104.​
13. McClave SA, Taylor BE, Martindale RG, et al. Guidelines for the provision and assessment of nutrition support therapy in the adult critically ill patient. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2016;40(2):159‑211.​
14. Chan LN, ed. ASPEN Adult Nutrition Support Core Curriculum. 4th ed. Silver Spring, MD: American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition; 2025.​
15. Nijdam D, Rood T, Westhoek H. The price of protein: review of land use and carbon footprints from life cycle assessments of animal food products and their substitutes. Food Policy. 2012;37(6):760‑770.​
16. Gerber PJ, Steinfeld H, Henderson B, et al. Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock: A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2013.​
17. Kim D, Kramer JB, Nachman KE, et al. Country‑specific dietary shifts to mitigate climate and water crises. Glob Environ Change. 2019;58:101944.​
18. American Heart Association. Saturated Fat. Dallas, TX: American Heart Association; 2024.​
19. U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Cut Down on Saturated Fat. Dietary Guidelines for Americans Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: USDA/HHS; 2021.​
20. Ludwig DS, Hu FB, Tappy L, Brand-Miller J. Dietary carbohydrates: role of quality and quantity in chronic disease. BMJ. 2018;361:k2340.​
21. Mansoor N, Vinknes KJ, Veierød MB, Retterstøl K. Effects of low‑carbohydrate diets vs low‑fat diets on body weight and cardiovascular risk factors: a meta‑analysis of randomized controlled trials. Br J Nutr. 2016;115(3):466‑479.​
22. Monteiro CA, Cannon G, Levy RB, et al. Ultra‑processed foods: what they are and how to identify them. Public Health Nutr. 2019;22(5):936‑941.​
23. Hall KD, Ayuketah A, Brychta R, et al. Ultra‑processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: an inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake. Cell Metab. 2019;30(1):67‑77.e3.​
24. Santos S, Richards J, van der Kamp J‑W, et al. Dietary fiber intake and cardiometabolic health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutr Rev. 2021;79(11):1308‑1320.​
25. Reynolds A, Mann J, Cummings J, Winter N, Mete E, Te Morenga L. Carbohydrate quality and human health: a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Lancet. 2019;393(10170):434‑445.​
26. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Diet Review: Ketogenic Diet for Weight Loss. Boston, MA: Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health; 2025.​
27. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Understanding the New Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Boston, MA: Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health; 2026.​
28. Stanhope KL. Sugar consumption, metabolic disease and obesity: the state of the controversy. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci. 2016;53(1):52‑67.​
29. SNAP to Health, Food is Medicine, and produce prescription program evaluations (representative synthesis article, e.g., Mozaffarian D, et al. Food is medicine—The promise and challenges of integrating food and nutrition into health care. JAMA. 2019;321(15):1447‑1448.)​
30. U.S. Census Bureau; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Income and Poverty in the United States: 2025; Consumer Expenditure Survey 2024–2025 (median earnings, poverty thresholds, and household food and housing expenditures).​
31. Legume Consumption and All‑Cause and Cardiovascular Disease Mortality: A Systematic Review and Dose‑Response Meta‑Analysis of Prospective Studies. Adv Nutr. 2023;14(2):315‑330.​